Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
Some people say they want "tolerance". Others say they want "sympathy for the downtrodden". In the last few decades, belief in an ironclad right to have an abortion, has been high on liberals' radar screens for judicial appointees.
These and several other things have been emphasized by liberals and other socialists in picking judicial nominees. But none is really "the" quality they want in a court judge.
All of these qualities do have something in common, though. And that points to what the liberals really want in a nominee or judge.
Q: What do they have in common?
A: None of those qualities are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the document that gives the Federal government all its powers (and restricts it to ONLY those powers).
That may seem like a trivial coincidence. But in fact, it gets to the heart of what the liberals want. In fact, it points to the most basic issue in all of politics, and the fundamental conflict between liberals and conservatives.
The most basic purpose of the Constitution, was to RESTRICT the Federal government's powers. It created the Fed govt in is present form, and assigns each branch the powers it can exercise. And the assumption was made that, if it didn't assign a certain power, then the Fed govt was forbidden to have that power. That assumption was later "cast in stone" by the 10th amendment.
Conservatives are fine with that arrangement, and believe it is a vital characteristic that keeps government out of the way of the citizens except for the few things government MUST do.
Liberals profoundly disagree, and feel that the more govt does to "help" people, the better off the people will be. They ignore the second half of the quote from Jefferson: "That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves."
Liberals want the U.S. to become a country where the government does more and more for people. But the Constitution expressly forbids such expansion of government authority unless a long amendment process is followed. And since the job of Federal judges is to make sure laws conform to the Constitution, conservatives want judges who will do that, while liberals and other socialists want judges who will try to get around that requirement, and permit the expansion of government the Constitution was designed to prevent.
To put it another way, conservatives see the Constitution as a framework for small government and a set of restrictions that forbid going outside that framework. Leftists also see the Constitution as a framework for small government... but one that is an obstacle to be gotten around. And the liberals dearly want judges who will also see it as a nuisance, an obstacle to be defeated.
How do they know which judges will do that? If a judge has previously ruled in favor of the qualities mentioned above (extra support for minorities, abortion etc.), then it is clear that that judge does not believe in the strict rules laid out in the Constitution to prevent them. And this is the kind of "judge" the socialist Democrats want on the bench - one who will rule in favor of their attempts to expand government beyond the bounds laid out in the Constitution.
When liberals favor judges who permit abortion, it's not because they like abortions (although undoubtedly some of them may). And when they favor judges who support racist policies like reverse discrimination, it's not because they oppose white people (although some of them may). It's because those judges are more likely to favor the MANY sretches and outright violations of the Constitution, the liberals need to convert this country to the big-government Nanny State they desire.
Abortions are not the ultimate goal, official boosting of minorities is not the ultimate goal, harm to big business is not the ultimate goal, though the liberals favor all those things as they come up. The ultimate goal is the same one socialists all ove the world have had for centiries: To create a society where government takes care of people, and people serve the government instead of serving themselves.
Finding judges who support abortion or reverse discrimination etc., is merely one step in that long process. But it's a vital step, since Federal judges are in a position to defeat the liberal socialists' ultimate goal. If they believe the Constitution is a document that should be followed instead of evaded, then the liberals are uninterested in supporting them. But if a judge believes more in his personal idyllic vision of a government-controlled society, the liberals will fight hard to get him on the bench.
Our liberal socialists want judges who will permit their attempts to expand government in ways the Constitution was designed to prevent. Judges who have supported abortion or reverse discrimination, are merely examples of suuch people - good indicators that they might be permissive of unconstitutional legislation in general.
These and several other things have been emphasized by liberals and other socialists in picking judicial nominees. But none is really "the" quality they want in a court judge.
All of these qualities do have something in common, though. And that points to what the liberals really want in a nominee or judge.
Q: What do they have in common?
A: None of those qualities are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the document that gives the Federal government all its powers (and restricts it to ONLY those powers).
That may seem like a trivial coincidence. But in fact, it gets to the heart of what the liberals want. In fact, it points to the most basic issue in all of politics, and the fundamental conflict between liberals and conservatives.
The most basic purpose of the Constitution, was to RESTRICT the Federal government's powers. It created the Fed govt in is present form, and assigns each branch the powers it can exercise. And the assumption was made that, if it didn't assign a certain power, then the Fed govt was forbidden to have that power. That assumption was later "cast in stone" by the 10th amendment.
Conservatives are fine with that arrangement, and believe it is a vital characteristic that keeps government out of the way of the citizens except for the few things government MUST do.
Liberals profoundly disagree, and feel that the more govt does to "help" people, the better off the people will be. They ignore the second half of the quote from Jefferson: "That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves."
Liberals want the U.S. to become a country where the government does more and more for people. But the Constitution expressly forbids such expansion of government authority unless a long amendment process is followed. And since the job of Federal judges is to make sure laws conform to the Constitution, conservatives want judges who will do that, while liberals and other socialists want judges who will try to get around that requirement, and permit the expansion of government the Constitution was designed to prevent.
To put it another way, conservatives see the Constitution as a framework for small government and a set of restrictions that forbid going outside that framework. Leftists also see the Constitution as a framework for small government... but one that is an obstacle to be gotten around. And the liberals dearly want judges who will also see it as a nuisance, an obstacle to be defeated.
How do they know which judges will do that? If a judge has previously ruled in favor of the qualities mentioned above (extra support for minorities, abortion etc.), then it is clear that that judge does not believe in the strict rules laid out in the Constitution to prevent them. And this is the kind of "judge" the socialist Democrats want on the bench - one who will rule in favor of their attempts to expand government beyond the bounds laid out in the Constitution.
When liberals favor judges who permit abortion, it's not because they like abortions (although undoubtedly some of them may). And when they favor judges who support racist policies like reverse discrimination, it's not because they oppose white people (although some of them may). It's because those judges are more likely to favor the MANY sretches and outright violations of the Constitution, the liberals need to convert this country to the big-government Nanny State they desire.
Abortions are not the ultimate goal, official boosting of minorities is not the ultimate goal, harm to big business is not the ultimate goal, though the liberals favor all those things as they come up. The ultimate goal is the same one socialists all ove the world have had for centiries: To create a society where government takes care of people, and people serve the government instead of serving themselves.
Finding judges who support abortion or reverse discrimination etc., is merely one step in that long process. But it's a vital step, since Federal judges are in a position to defeat the liberal socialists' ultimate goal. If they believe the Constitution is a document that should be followed instead of evaded, then the liberals are uninterested in supporting them. But if a judge believes more in his personal idyllic vision of a government-controlled society, the liberals will fight hard to get him on the bench.
Our liberal socialists want judges who will permit their attempts to expand government in ways the Constitution was designed to prevent. Judges who have supported abortion or reverse discrimination, are merely examples of suuch people - good indicators that they might be permissive of unconstitutional legislation in general.
